You are here

Greece, Cyprus, geopolitics and future world orders

Primary tabs

Greece, Cyprus, geopolitics and future world orders

Dimitris Konstantakopoulos speaks with Alexander Dugin published partly in the Greek newspaper ”REAL.NEWS” 21.04.2013 and entirely in the Greek magazine “Hellenic Nexus”, May 2013)

Dimitris Konstantakopoulos:There is a theory about Greece as an inseparable part of Sea Power, proponents of which very often refer to the so called Sea Power dogma of Thucydides: «Μέγατοτηςθαλάσσηςκράτος». What’s your comment?

Alexander Dugin: Being involved in geopolitical studies for decades and being founder of the modern Russian school of geopolitics I have made much historical research on the geopolitical identity of Greece, ancient and modern. In the first place, according to the core texts of geopolitics (starting from Halford Mackinder), it’s regarded as essentially double: Athenian thalassocracy vs. tellurocracy of Sparta. So both principles, Sea and Land, defined the dialectic nature of Greek history. That was precisely what Thucydides who in his history of Peloponnesian war, developed in his dialectic: Fleet/Sea as the main weapon of Athenian Empire, and Infantry/Land as of Sparta. In this way thalassocracy was linked to democracy, and tellurocracy to aristocracy. Therefore all depends on the point of view: if we consider (against Plato and Aristotle) democracy as the absolute form of polity then Greece is seen from thalassocratic angle, but if we prefer nobility, spiritual tradition and hierarchy then Land power and Sparta are taken as ideal.

Moreover, in the commentaries of neoplatonic Proclus on Plato’s dialogue “Kritias” (Κριτίας ), that forms a part of Proclus commentaries on “Timeus” (Τίμαιος), he developed a very important geopolitical vision concerning the symbolic function of Athenians and Atlantians during the mythical war (seen essentially as Land and Sea Power respectively). According to Proclus the Greeks or to be more precise Athenians (αρχαία πόλη των Αθηναίων) were representatives of the three main principles: 1) Athena (Αθήνα) – the Goddess of Wisdom and War, 2) Hephaestus (Ἥφαιστος) – the Formgiver, the Demiurge and 3) Gaia (Γαία) – Mother Earth, the element of Land. Together they formed the universe of Athenian people as opposed to the one of Atlantians (βασιλείο της Ατλαντίδας), rooted in Titans’ spirit and linked to the element of Water. Between them there were the Pillars of Hercules (Ἡρακλέουςστήλας) in the Strait of Gibraltar which separated the realm of gods from the realm of infernal daemons (Titans). Originally that was the sense of the sign or “aegis” placed on the two Columns – Nec plus ultra (“nothing further beyond”), serving as a warning to sailors and navigators. Interestingly, nowadays we see the same symbol on the US dollar but with the omitted “Nec” that gives us “Plus Ultra” (“go further”).

The people of Atlantis were described by Proclus as typical thalassocratic. Their life was based on materiality, richness, inventiveness, was a kind of Ancient Carthage society. On the contrary, the Athenians were noble, hierarchically orientated, on the side of honor and courage. Beyond the Pillars of Hercules lay the domain of lie, materiality, calculation, developed machinery, brutal force – the power of hybris. This area of sacred geography was put under the power of Hecata (Ἑκάτη), Goddess of hell (I presume all Greeks recognize the Statue of Liberty in New York. No doubt its headgear with characteristic spikes has Hecatean nature). For Proclus the Athenian land was not West (West was Atlantis), nor East (East was Persia). Greece was the absolute center of the world, Axis Mundi. And its destiny was the war for divine Justice and for love of Wisdom.

Accordingly, in terms of modern geopolitics Greece forms a part of Rimland or of what Mackinder called “inner crescent”. That’s why its geopolitical identity is essentially open: Greece can choose between Land Power (Eurasia) and Sea Power (the USA, UK and NATO). Obviously the other geopolitical players are interested in the attraction of Greece and every side uses its own methods. The thalassocratic lobby in Greece insists on the “unique” identity presuming the thalassocratic orientation of the country, putting it in the camp of the USA and other atlantist states and opposing it to Russia and/or Germany as well as Turkey. As far as I know, the main proponent of the thalassocracy in Greek decision-making circles is Ch. Lazaridis (Χρύσανθος Λαζαρίδης), advisor to prime-minister A.Samaras (Αντώνης Σαμαράς). But I have to say that such a geopolitical vision is quite subjective and one-sided. Certainly, Greece can choose to be thalassocratic or better to become thalassocratic, to behave in thalassocratic way. And there are some arguments that justify it. It is obvious that NATO and the USA as well as the global financial networks support this kind of orientation. But that is not its destiny, nor identity – it is no more than a choice. Greece could be thalassocratic but with the same right it could be tellurocratic. All depends on Greece and the free will of its people.

It is unnecessary to say that Byzantine Empire was tellurocratic. Modern Greece has never actually depended essentially on Sea Power. It was to a considerable degree continentally orientated. The Left forces were attracted by the Eurasian Soviet Union. The Right forces were also rather ethnocentric and tellurocratic with focus on the Greek tradition, the Orthodox church, national values, hierarchy and so on. Only liberalism, globalism and NATO guide-lines are typically thalassocratic. Even the vast merchant marine fleet of Greece is in fact not so Greek but controlled and exploited by the outside players, advantageously the USA and the UK (that’s why it failed to help the country in time of the current crisis). So I reiterate once more, the geopolitical orientation of Athens is the subject of choice, not destiny.

Dimitris Konstantakopoulos: The previous Cypriot “left” government, under Mr. Christofias, asked a rather low - for Russian standards and financial possibilities - loan from the Russian government, which Moscow did not provide and which could probably impede or delay the fall ofCyprus under the colonial yoke of “troika” (EU, ECB, IMF). What was the reason? Do you consider this decision as correct in the light of what has followed?

Alexander Dugin: As far as I understand Mr. Christofias (Δημήτρης Χριστόφιας) was more or less adequate as the political leader of Cyprus, but he made some grave tactical errors. Russia supported him up to the certain point. Maybe we should have been more consistent and insistent… But when it became obvious that Christofias was going to lose the elections Moscow behaved in realist, pragmatic way. I consider that to be an erroneous step of Russia. The Kremlin didn’t appreciate in time the gravity of what was going on and underestimated the importance of the geopolitical battle for Cyprus. So the coming of Anastasiadis was a real catastrophe for Cypriots as well as for Greeks and Russians. The control over this strategically key island, as you have said, passed to the third player (troika). I could explain that only by the early stage of geopolitical consciousness of Putin’s government and by the inertia of Russian diplomacy and who knows by effective strategic counter-operation of atlantist elite in Russia itself not fully purged yet by Putin. The example of such groups is Sergey Karaganov (Сергей Караганов), visiting member of American Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) who tries to convince Putin not to meddle in Cyprus’ affairs and to stay away from Greek politics… We should have foreseen the dramatic repercussions and we didn’t. Being honest, I have nothing to say to justify our passivity…

Dimitris Konstantakopoulos: After the recent crisis around Eurogroup’s decisions on Cyprus and the rather unsuccessful trip of Cypriot Finance Minister to Moscow, many people in Greece and Cyprus have drawn the conclusion that Russia is unable or unwilling to help two states in dire straits. How do you comment?

Alexander Dugin: I think that all the story about Mr.Anastasiadis (Νίκος Αναστασιάδης) and his government is a kind of successful, alas, atlantist plot. All he’s done, just after his election, shows that he is manipulated by external powers in order to put Cyprus under direct control of the USA and global oligarchy. This means that all steps toward Russia were feigned. Mr.Sarris (Μιχάλης Σαρρής), who has been dismissed now, while staying in Moscow rejected any real proposals by Russia with regard to finance, economics and possible loans. It was obvious for those who interacted with him that his real goal was simulacrum of activity and all real decisions regarding Cyprus were already made somewhere else.

As far as I understand there is a kind of similar strategy of the USA/globalist circles being applied both in Greece and Cyprus: to implement a chaos, to make the social and economic situation explode and to put both States with strong Christian Orthodox identities and high level of the historic and politic self-consciousness under direct control of American strategists and financial oligarchy. But that presupposes the weakening and eventual break of all existing links with continental Russia (Land Power), especially of the common projects in the field of energy. Most of them have been sabotaged in accordance with the will of the USA/EU atlantist groups by the “Greek side” against Greece’s actual interests.

Dimitris Konstantakopoulos:By simply announcing their first decisions on Cypriot banks, the Finance Ministers of Eurozone, European Commission, ECB and IMF have dealt a terrible blow to any trust in Cypriot financial sector and to the Cypriot economy as a whole, given the fact that this economy was based essentially on the financial sector. The result was thatCyprus was crushed in a way no general could have achieved so quickly and so effectively by military means. Are we in an environment of war, by non military, financial and information means? If so, who is organizing this campaign and what are the means to resist it?

Alexander Dugin: You are right. We are dealing with new forms of war. Finally in any war the main goal to achieve is control. If it could be realized without direct confrontation with the enemy the victory is only greater. If a defeated foe doesn’t realize it’s been defeated the victory is greatest. In our world the financial system is the core of the economy. That is the foundation of the famous post-industrial society. Therefore the control over finances is the source of power, including political one. But this state of affairs cannot be changed without overthrowing the whole global power of financial oligarchy and planetary liberal world order. It proclaims the eternal exponential growth of market economy. This narrative serves to dismiss as obsolete and archaic any other segments of economy which leads to buying them up by dumping price.

Big finance is international by its nature and can always demonstrate the dominance over any nationally-framed economy. The Cyprus case clearly illustrates the extreme fragility of sovereignty in the era of post-modern globalization and poses not local but universal questions. Can we conserve the very principle of the national state or has the time of the world government truly arrived and the point of no return already passed by?

From my point of view the national state can not stand any more – or can but not for too long. Its days are numbered. The real problem is elsewhere: will the future world order be unipolar (and hence in the hands of the global, mostly Western, financial oligarchy) or multipolar (BRICS is a kind of sketch of what it could be). There are countries with limited freedom of choice, incorporated firmly in the global West. There are others that can choose. I think that Cyprus and Greece belong to the type of States that can choose. So their inclusion in the global Americano-centric atlantist system is certain violence, a kind of geopolitical “rape”. Eurasia could present the decent and free “affiance”. But I agree, as I have just said, that Russia should behave with Cyprus and Greece in a much more intelligent and truthful manner…

Dimitris Konstantakopoulos: Libya was destroyed, Syria is under attack, the most friendly to Russia countries of EU, Greece and Cyprus, are in a process of destruction and/or complete colonization,Israel and Turkey are rebuilding their alliance. Seen from Moscow, the strategic landscape in Eastern Mediterranean begins to be comparable to what happened in this region after the Crimean War. How Russia apprehends this new situation?

Alexander Dugin: We consider that as an ongoing attack against us and the multipolar world. I doubt that the Greater Middle East Project that is being realized in front of our eyes will lead to stability. It is clear that the USA bets on chaos. There is no positive goal. Turkey’s involvement in Syria and the Arab region is a prelude to its own split. Israel will be torn apart by inner contradictions. I fear the same fate of bloody destruction awaits all other Eastern Mediterranean States. Libya after the end of Colonel Gaddafi didn’t become more democratic or peaceful, nor did Iraq. The former friends of the USA in the region lose as well as American foes do. To propose something really effective as an alternative to the new American strategy of bloody turbulence is not easy. The old geometry of the balance of power cannot stand eternally. The entropy corrodes the regimes established in other epochs and under different circumstances. Russia should make an effort and imagine something completely new, Eurasian analog of the Greater Middle East Project but conversely oriented. We lack such a strategy currently, hence we are losing precious time. Personally, I think that we should bet on Antiamerican, tellurocratic, antiliberal revolution. Something like the Fourth Political Theory which is against the first one (liberalism) and beyond the second (communism) and the third (nationalism). Only going in that direction will we be able to suggest the real alternative. But that demands no more nor less than the Global Geopolitical Revolution, the Eurasian Revolution.

Dimitris Konstantakopoulos:What are the reasons behind Israeli-Turkish reconciliation? What are the probabilities of a more intense military campaign against Syria or Iran?How do you analyze the prospect of Kurdish-Turkish reconciliation?

Alexander Dugin: Israel and Turkey are Rimland powers so theoretically are, for them, both geopolitical orientations (thalassocracy and tellurocracy) possible. But the main trend in these countries now is Atlanticism. It hasn’t changed even during the so called “cold period” of mutual relations between the countries after the incident of the Turkish citizens killed by Israeli assault group. Turkey used this incident to enforce its influence in Arab world (in the sense shown by the USA in order to prepare for the intervention in Syria). Israel used the same opportunity to get closer to traditionally more or less anti-Israel oriented Greece and Cyprus. So their reconciliation is absolutely logical: both countries managed to achieve in the interim of the pretended “quarrel” their (but in the reality American) tactical goals. Israel and Turkey are following the road map made by the “third side”. All that are obviously steps in preparing for the final invasion of Iran. After the fall of the Assad regime there will be the turn of Iran.

About Turkish-Kurdish reconciliation I think of as something quite impossible. The Kurds and the Turks in the present situation are both under American guidance, but they are exploited to achieve different goals. Turkey wants to reinforce its national cohesion, the Kurds want to create the national state of Kurdistan, starting from Northern Iraq and aiming at Iranian Kurd territories (in case of intervention in Iran). But it is evident that Turkish Kurdistan can’t be exempt from the process and sooner or later Ankara will be obliged to pay the full price for its Atlanticism.

Dimitris Konstantakopoulos: Do you believe Obama’s policies provide, after all, some ground for a kind of a USA-Russia understanding in the Middle East? Under which conditions could this happen?

Alexander Dugin: It is absolutely impossible. We have nothing in common with the American strategy. Our relations are based on the law of zero-sum game. Our vision of the situation all over the world is quite opposite. The American order contradicts multipolar vision of Moscow in general as well as in the details. We are playing a sort of chess game. I once asked Mr. Brzezinski about what he thought about the second player on the “Great Chess Board” as he called Eurasia in his famous book. He answered (and I think sincerely): “I’ve never thought of the second player…” So the USA plays both parts. Such an attitude excludes Russia a priori: the only Russian politics in the region that could be accepted by Washington is the American politics. Putin is not such a kind of man. He is a realist. That’s why the conditions for the USA-Russia understanding in the Middle East as well as elsewhere are nonexistent.

Dimitris Konstantakopoulos: German-Russian relations are going to follow in the long run the Rapallo or the Ribbentrop-Molotov path? Berlin is following in Europe a policy which begins to look very much like the policy it followed during the first half of 20thcentury, creating the conditions for intra-European financial “debt wars” which can destroy Europe and create again conditions for its domination by outside forces. In the same time, many observers are shocked by recent revelations in Germany about the extremely close relationship between Chancellor Merkel and Goldman Sachs. One wonders for the leverage of Finance over States those days. Do you believe that Berlin, under such, may evolve into a reliable partner of Moscow in “multipolarity”?

Alexander Dugin: Geopolitics today is not linear but a complex multilevel game. There are actors who, belonging to the same political entity, behave in a quite different manner and pursue quite different ends. There is the USA as a national state which means unipolarity, Empire, the image of America defended by recently famous but today a little forgotten Neocons and so on. It represents open Atlanticism in an explicit way. What is good for the USA is good for the Rest. It is one level of global action and we shouldn’t dismiss it too early. The USA remains the hyperpower. It is in decline but such a decline can last long enough. Before its final disappearance the USA can do much harm. There is global oligarchy represented by Rothschilds, Soros and other powerful world financial groups. Goldman Sachs is rather on that side. These circles are fully international and cosmopolitan. Although for some operations they prefer Europe, their real HQs are always on the other side of the Atlantic Ocean, beyond the Pillars of Hercules, in the realm of the demons of the matter (according to Proclus). It is possible that both groups see the future of the world order and the ways to its installation a bit differently. But they share the same of values and the addiction to the liberal-capitalist globalization. The only disagreement is a matter of timing and methods.

There is also the EU. On one side it is an atlantist creature, liberal, capitalist zone of NATO and the free market society based on the ideology of human rights and so on. It is a kind of prolongation of the two USA ruling groups in Europe: the American financial elite control the European banking system, while the American military strategists rule in NATO. The other side of Europe is the weak sense of continental, purely European identity – placed more to the left or to the Gaullist vision of independent sovereign Europe from Atlantic to the Urals. It is “European Europe”, “parallel Europe”, more virtual than real. Alas…

Where do we situate Germany in this multilevel geopolitical field? Being dependent on the USA and NATO it isn’t politically and military free. Economically it is much more self-reliant but also up to a certain point. So actually playing any game Germany is obliged much more than France to follow atlantist directives. In the German economy there are some domains where continental Land-power features are visible. Germany is inclined to develop economic and energy cooperation with Russia, tries to save euro, sees itself as the pole of the united Europe (as the virtual possibility of future geopolitical revival). But in the main areas Berlin depends on the USA as all other countries of the EU do. Therefore in Greece Germany plays a game reflecting this double identity. Sometimes it follows the American orders (from both centres of decisions), sometimes strives to save the EU from the collapse that some in Washington consider as one of the probable scenarios in the near future.

What we need is the other global geopolitical pole in the person of Eurasia. It would give to the whole European system the dimension of real freedom it fatally lacks now. If Russia (and eventually China) remains passive, the USA and the global oligarchy in Europe or elsewhere are free to play exactly as Brzeszinsky described – moving on their own white and black chessmen as well as pieces of other more nuanced colors.

Dimitris Konstantakopoulos: President Obama has postponed the realization of the antimissile program, but he has announced, in the same time, a huge state research program, BRAIN, to study human mind and its behavior, invoking medical and economic reasons. Do you think that it will be ever possible for humans to control the use of their technological products, will there be any effective way to impede the use of Science as a weapon?

Alexander Dugin: The science has always served as a powerful weapon and human “brains” has been under constant scrutiny beginning from the first Greek philosophers. I think that the USA works simultaneously in many directions – from “hard power” (including new types of the so called “smart defense” and “network warfare”) up to different kinds of “soft power” (informational and psychological wars and so on). We can not impede such a process by peaceful means. The war is in human nature as well as hankering after knowledge. We are to follow the path of self-destruction up to the end. But instead of accepting this process as the fate we must rise against the status quo, hegemony, USA, global domination, materialism and capitalism. Science is the techne (τέχνη) in Heideggerrian sense. In order to go out of its control we should change the regime of our existence, we need to exist authentically. Heidegger calls it the Event (Er-eignis). Politically it could be called the Global Revolution. It is a spiritual exploit, not technical one.

Dimitris Konstantakopoulos: In the 5th century BC, Man created the miracle of the City of Athens beginning a struggle against Money. It seems like Money takes revenge these days from Man. How do you see such a reading of what is happening in Europe? Where can Man look for salvation?

Alexander Dugin: Exactly! This reading is the one I share. Money is the matter and the principle of division. The digitalization of Money is one more step towards their real nature. Plotinus called the matter “the being of no-being” and “the truth of the lie”. Or elsewhere “the phantasm of the mass”. So the order of Money is the extreme form of degradation, dehumanization and global hallucination. It is the most unjust and corrupted form of existence. Money is the limit of decay and degradation. It is not just an instrument; it is the metaphysical evil itself. So the civilization that put itself under the power of Money will perish as Atlantis did. But I am persuaded that the struggle of Man against Money, of authentic Dasein against the Gestell and techne, of the Athenian order of things against the atlantic seduction has not finished yet. Not in Greece nor in the other parts of the world. Speaking neoplatonicly: we are in the extreme phase of progress (πρόοδος), where the noetic Principle reaches the material periphery. The modern world is profoundly stupid and banal. It is the material world, the world of Money, the kingdom of evil and apostasy, the Antichrist. But that is the last call to switch the regime of existence. It is the time of epistrophe (επιστροφή), the Great Turn (Kehre) and the Event (Er-eignis), the time of Other Beginning (AndereAnfang).

The first beginning, the beginning of philosophy as the destiny of Man, happened in Greece. Let’s repeat it ones more. Repeat for the sake of Man and against the order of Money.

Dimitris Konstantakopoulos is a Greek journalist and writer, specializing in international politics. He has studied Physics in the University of Athens and he has got a DEA on Information Process from the University of Rennes, in France. Among other posts, he served as a special advisor in the Office of Greek Prime Minister Andreas Papandreou, specializing in East-West relations and Arms Control. He was chief correspondent for Athens News Agency in Moscow (where he represented also various other Greek and German media) from 1989 to 1999. He has traveled extensively covering crises in ex-USSR, Cyprus, Western Europe and the Middle East. He is the writer of one book on relations between Greek and Soviet Communist Parties and of two books on the Cyprus issue, the first focusing on the role of Cyprus in the US strategies towards Europe and the Middle East, the second on the relations between Nation and the Left. He is a member of the editorial committee of the international review “Utopie Critique” and of the scientific council of the French review “La Pansee Libre”. He had various political activities, among them he was elected and served as the Secretary of the Movement of Independent Citizens “Spark”(«Искра») created by resistant fighter and worldwide known music composer Mikis Theodorakis.

Search form

Also See

Recent Articles

We are no less different from Europe than Iranians or Indians. Sure, we share common roots with Greco-Roman civilization, but this civilization underwent a schism that began in the 6th century when the Western Empire fell away from Byzantium and then disappeared under attack by Germanic tribes. Already back then, two identities formed: a Catholic identity in the West, and an Orthodox identity in the East. The two gradually drifted away from one another further and further until, in 1054, the Orthodox and Catholic worlds parted ways once and for all. We, Russians, adopted Christianity from Byzantium and have kept none other than this Eastern Christian tradition to this day.

After the fall of Constantinople to the Turks, we took over the Byzantine mission. This is not merely the mission of a country, Trubetzkoy asserted, but the pole of self-conscious and independent Orthodox civilization, its center.